The Future of Argentine Citizenship Under DNU 366/2025

Argentine Congress building symbolizing legal debate over DNU 366/2025 citizenship reform and transfer of naturalization powers to the executive.

On May 28, 2025, the Argentine government issued Decreto 366/2025 (DNU 366/2025), a sweeping emergency decree overhauling immigration, education, healthcare, and naturalization policy. Among its most controversial provisions was the removal of federal judges’ authority in granting Argentine citizenship, vesting this power exclusively in the National Directorate of Migration (DNM), an agency of the Executive Branch. This article analyzes the constitutionality of that change, the likely legal and institutional outcomes, and what it means for future applicants seeking Argentine citizenship under the new regime.

Key Change: From Judges to Bureaucrats

For over a century, Argentine citizenship by naturalization was governed by Law No. 346 of 1869, under which eligible immigrants (generally after two years’ residency) petitioned federal judges for citizenship. The courts would verify residency, conduct criminal background checks, assess the applicant’s economic activity and “good moral character,” and then approve or deny naturalization. DNU 366/2025 radically altered this process:

• Administrative control: The power to grant citizenship now lies exclusively with DNM, removing the courts from the process entirely. Naturalization applications will be handled by bureaucrats instead of judges, fundamentally changing a judicial tradition dating back to the 19th century.

• Stricter residency requirements: Only foreign nationals who are permanent residents and have lived two continuous years on Argentine soil are eligible to apply for citizenship. The decree explicitly requires two uninterrupted years of legal residence – applicants cannot have left the country during that period. This effectively ends the previous tolerance for brief travel abroad and excludes those in irregular status (no matter how long they’ve lived in Argentina).

• “Citizenship by investment” introduced: DNU 366/2025 creates a new fast-track mechanism where high-net-worth individuals can obtain citizenship by making a significant capital investment in Argentina. In other words, an immigrant who invests a large sum (reportedly around US$500,000) can secure Argentine nationality without meeting the 2-year residency rule. This policy aims to attract foreign investors by offering them Argentine passports in return.

  
  

These changes mark a dramatic shift from Argentina’s historically inclusive approach (which often granted citizenship even to those with informal status or brief absences). Placing naturalization in the hands of an administrative agency is intended to “streamline” the process, but it also raises serious questions about checks and balances and equal access.

Legal Concerns: Is DNU 366/2025 Constitutional?

Many legal scholars, jurists, and civil society organizations argue that DNU 366/2025 is unconstitutional, particularly in how it reallocates powers over citizenship. Key arguments against the decree include:

• Lack of necessity and urgency: Article 99.3 of the Argentine Constitution allows the President to issue DNUs only in cases of true necessity and urgency, when Congress is unable to legislate in time. Critics contend there was no sudden emergency requiring an immediate overhaul of citizenship law. The issues cited (such as irregular immigration and alleged abuses of public services) were longstanding challenges, not abrupt crises. Bypassing Congress on a matter as fundamental as nationality fails the constitutional test of “necessity and urgency.”

• Violation of separation of powers: The Argentine Constitution (Art. 75 inc. 12) explicitly reserves to Congress the authority to regulate naturalization and nationality. By unilaterally changing citizenship rules via executive decree, the President arguably usurped legislative powers. A similar critique was made by courts when striking down a 2017 immigration DNU; judges held that the decree “constitutes an appropriation of legislative faculties without constitutional justification.” Opponents say DNU 366/2025 likewise oversteps executive authority and should have been a congressional bill, not an edict.

• Erosion of due process and oversight: Removing judicial review from the naturalization process raises concerns about fairness and due process. Under the old system, independent judges could weigh individual circumstances and ensure rights were protected in each case. Now a single administrative body (DNM) holds all discretion to grant or deny citizenship, with no court involved. This concentration of power could invite arbitrary or politically motivated decisions, especially under an administration known for hardline immigration rhetoric. Legal experts warn that eliminating judicial oversight undermines checks and balances and may violate migrants’ right to an effective remedy.

  
  

In sum, detractors argue that DNU 366/2025 fails constitutional muster on both procedural grounds (improper use of a DNU without true urgency, usurping Congress’s role) and substantive grounds (undermining rights and due process guarantees for would-be citizens). There is also broader concern that the shift opens the door to discretionary or politicized criteria for citizenship, given the current government’s nationalist and deregulatory agenda. By concentrating naturalization power in the executive bureaucracy, the risk of favoritism or discrimination in granting citizenship may increase – a stark change for a country with a proud history of broad immigrant inclusion.

Current Status: Judicial and Administrative Freeze

The implementation of DNU 366/2025 has been chaotic, leading to a de facto legal vacuum for new citizenship applications:

• Ongoing cases (pre-decree): All citizenship applications filed before May 29, 2025 – the date the DNU took effect – are continuing under the old judicial system in federal court. Judges are still processing those cases and, presumably, will naturalize eligible applicants under Law 346 as it existed prior to the decree.

• New applications (post-decree): Federal courts have stopped accepting new citizenship filings as of late May, citing the decree’s removal of their jurisdiction. However, the DNM (the immigration authority) has not yet established any clear process or regulations to handle new citizenship applications under its purview. As of now there is no application form, procedure, or office openly handling naturalization requests at DNM. This administrative limbo means many eligible immigrants ready to apply for citizenship have nowhere to file their petitions.

  
  

This institutional paralysis has left numerous long-term residents in limbo. Foreign parents of Argentine-born children, for example, who planned to naturalize after the standard two-year wait now face uncertainty about when and how they can obtain citizenship. Lawyers report confusion as well – the decree became effective immediately, but without implementing guidelines, it’s unclear how DNM will vet applications or if additional rules will be imposed. Until the bureaucracy creates a new system (or the decree is rolled back), aspiring citizens are effectively in legal limbo, unable to progress toward nationality despite meeting the requirements.

What Could Happen Next? Legal Scenarios

There are several possible paths forward for DNU 366/2025, as courts and lawmakers grapple with its legality and practicality. Three likely scenarios include:

• Full implementation of the DNU: In this outcome, the decree survives all challenges. The DNM would eventually set up a formal application procedure, and Congress would not overturn the decree. Argentine naturalization would then shift permanently to an administrative model – similar to systems in many countries where interior ministries handle citizenship. In theory this could streamline processes, but experts note it would likely favor wealthier applicants (through the investment option) while making it harder for low-income immigrants to obtain citizenship. Strict residency enforcement (no travel abroad in two years) and the exclusion of those with any irregular status would significantly restrict access for more vulnerable migrants. Argentina’s policy would move away from its open, court-accessible tradition to a more controlled, executive-driven approach.

• Judicial invalidation: Argentine courts may intervene and strike down DNU 366/2025 (in whole or in part) as unconstitutional. There is precedent for this – a federal chamber in 2018 declared Mauricio Macri’s immigration DNU 70/2017 invalid for overstepping executive power and violating due process. Should a similar lawsuit prevail now, judges could nullify the provisions transferring citizenship to DNM. The traditional judicial pathway to citizenship would then be restored. Any reforms to naturalization (residency rules, investment programs, etc.) would need to be enacted via Congress after proper debate. Notably, Argentina’s Supreme Court has in the past emphasized that immigration/citizenship policy must align with constitutional and human-rights standards – a review on those grounds could void the decree’s most contentious parts.

• Legislative override: Under Argentina’s DNU oversight law, the Bicameral Commission on Legislative Procedure reviews new decrees and sends a recommendation to Congress. If either chamber of Congress votes to reject the DNU, it becomes null and void. In this case, the DNU (Exp. 46/25 in the commission) was sent for review on June 10, 2025. The opposition in Congress – which has voiced outrage at the citizenship changes – could muster enough votes to formally reject the decree. Given the president’s coalition does not control both houses, this is a real possibility. If the Senate or Chamber of Deputies disapproves DNU 366/2025, the pre-existing laws (Law 346 on citizenship, Law 25.871 on migration) would remain in force. The government would then have to pursue any immigration reforms through the normal legislative process. However, internal political calculations (and potential deals) will determine if an override vote occurs; it’s not guaranteed, especially if some lawmakers prefer to amend rather than revoke the decree.

  
  

Timeline and Political Outlook

As of late June 2025, no definitive action has been taken to resolve the status of DNU 366/2025:

• Bicameral review pending: The Bicameral Commission charged with examining DNUs received the decree in early June but had not issued a recommendation by the end of the month. This delay means the decree remains in force temporarily, but also in a kind of legislative suspense.

• Civil society pressure: A broad coalition of NGOs, migrant associations, and human rights groups are demanding urgent congressional review. Protests and public hearings have been held decrying the “racist and elitist” nature of the DNU and urging lawmakers to act quickly to reject it. These groups highlight the human impact on families stuck in limbo and the risk of abuse if the decree stands.

  
  

Looking ahead, observers expect the situation to come to a head in Q3 or Q4 of 2025. By then, one of three things will likely occur: (a) the courts will rule on pending legal challenges, (b) Congress (either chamber) will vote on a resolution to uphold or reject the DNU, or (c) the Executive might itself tweak or roll back parts of the decree in response to public and political pushback. Until then, uncertainty reigns for thousands of immigrants who await clarity on the rules that will decide their future in Argentina.

Expert and Civil Society Responses

The backlash against DNU 366/2025 has been swift and vocal. Legal experts, academics, and activists have widely condemned the decree on both principled and practical grounds:

• Constitutional law scholars: Figures like María José Lubertino and Pablo Ceriani have blasted the decree as elitist, discriminatory, and unconstitutional. They argue it betrays Argentina’s legal commitments by elevating wealth as a criterion for citizenship while shutting out long-standing residents who are less affluent. Ceriani noted that the DNU would allow people to effectively “buy” Argentine citizenship – an option impossible for working-class immigrants, who could never invest hundreds of thousands of dollars. Such an approach, he says, creates a two-tier system favoring the rich and undermines the egalitarian spirit of Argentine nationality law.

• Human rights and migrant advocates: Activist networks and NGOs point out that granting citizenship to foreign investors, while simultaneously making naturalization harder for low-income immigrants, contradicts Argentina’s inclusive immigration legacy. For decades, Argentina prided itself on offering newcomers political and civil rights (even those with humble means) and a clear path to citizenship. The new policy reverses that ethos. They also highlight that many affected by the stricter rules are vulnerable populations – for example, migrant domestic workers, refugees, or informal laborers who might have minor paperwork gaps or who can’t afford constant legal residence – effectively punishing those communities while catering to wealthy expats.

• Legal vulnerability of the decree: Analysts describe DNU 366/2025 as built on shaky legal ground. Its sweeping contents and the lack of a genuine emergency rationale make it a prime target for judicial quashing or legislative repeal. Even some who support tighter immigration controls have expressed concern that doing it via decree was an overreach that could backfire and be struck down. The consensus among many experts is that the DNU’s overbroad scope and procedural flaws leave it on “thin ice” legally.

  
  

International Context and Political Messaging

The Argentine government has framed this reform as part of a broader ideological shift toward “merit-based” and security-focused immigration policies, openly aligning itself with hardline stances seen in other countries. Officials in President Milei’s administration have favorably compared DNU 366/2025 to measures by leaders known for nationalist, restrictive migration policies. The symbolic rhetoric – even adopting Trump-like slogans such as “make Argentina great again” – underscores that this decree is as much a political statement as a policy change.

However, this alignment is highly controversial in Argentina. The country is historically “a nation of immigrants,” and its identity and Constitution celebrate welcoming those “who want to inhabit Argentine soil” without discrimination. By charging fees for health and education and restricting citizenship, Argentina is breaking with a long tradition of openness. Many Argentines view the decree’s hardline messaging as a jarring import that doesn’t fit Argentina’s social contract. Critics accuse the government of politicizing immigration for electoral gain, scapegoating migrants for economic woes despite a lack of evidence of any recent migrant surge. Census data shows Argentina’s foreign-born population is at its lowest proportion in over a century, undermining claims of an immigration “invasion.” Thus, the government’s hard-right posturing appears driven by ideology and politics more than actual demographic pressure.

In international eyes, the decree has also raised eyebrows. Argentina’s move comes at a time when global debates on migration are polarized. By echoing nationalist leaders abroad, the administration may be seeking favor with certain geopolitical allies or domestic constituencies. Yet it risks damage to Argentina’s reputation as a welcoming country and could strain relations with neighboring countries whose citizens are directly affected. The political messaging around DNU 366/2025, therefore, walks a tightrope: it satisfies a segment of conservative opinion at home, but it conflicts with Argentina’s longstanding values and international commitments regarding migrants.

Final Outlook: What Is Likely to Happen?

Based on the legal precedents, the balance of political power, and the intensity of public opposition, the most realistic scenario is that DNU 366/2025 will not survive in its current form. Several outcomes seem probable:

• Judicial or legislative pushback will roll back the core change: It is likely that Argentina’s judiciary or Congress (or both) will invalidate the transfer of citizenship authority to DNM. The constitutional case against that provision is strong, and there is significant political will to restore the status quo. We expect that the traditional court-based pathway for citizenship applications will be reinstated, at least for the majority of cases.

• Citizenship-by-investment will be moderated (or formalized by law): The new investment fast-track may survive the scrutiny, but not exactly as written in the DNU. A well-regulated investment program could be framed as an implementation of constitutional principles. However, it will likely require legislative backing and safeguards – for example, setting the investment amount (around $500k), vetting sources of funds, and maintaining some judicial oversight. In other words, an investor route might remain as a parallel option, but with more transparency and embedded in a law passed by Congress rather than a decree.

• Comprehensive immigration/citizenship reform through Congress: The controversy may spur lawmakers to draft a new citizenship law or an amendment to Law 346, modernizing the criteria with broader consensus. Such legislation could incorporate some of the government’s goals but in a way that’s constitutionally sound and politically negotiated. A reformed framework via Congress could emerge, tempering the extreme edges of the decree while updating processes (for instance, digitizing court procedures or reducing backlogs in the judicial system).

  
  

In summary, DNU 366/2025 is unlikely to stand as-is. The most probable endgame is a partial retraction of the decree’s measures and a return to some form of the previous system, possibly augmented by a legislated investment option and other reforms. The exact mechanism of unwinding it – court decision, congressional vote, or executive retreat – remains to be seen, but the momentum is clearly against a permanent full implementation.

Conclusion

DNU 366/2025 marks a turning point in Argentina’s immigration and citizenship policy, representing the boldest attempt in decades to reshape who gets to become Argentine and how. Its provisions – shifting naturalization from judges to bureaucrats, tightening residency rules, and monetizing citizenship for investors – have provoked a clash between the Executive and those who uphold the constitutional and humanitarian foundations of Argentine immigration law. In many ways, the decree’s overreach has already galvanized a robust defense of those foundations.

In the coming months, Argentina’s courts, legislators, and civil society will play critical roles in determining the decree’s fate. The likely result is that the most problematic aspects of DNU 366/2025 will be curtailed or nullified, reasserting the constitutional principle that changes to citizenship law must come with democratic deliberation and respect for rights. Argentina’s identity as an immigrant-welcoming nation – enshrined in its Constitution and history – has been challenged by this decree, but that identity also provides the legal and moral tools for a strong response. Ultimately, the turmoil surrounding DNU 366/2025 may lead to a more carefully crafted modernization of citizenship laws, one achieved through consensus rather than unilateral fiat. For now, applicants seeking Argentine citizenship should stay informed and patient: the rules may change again soon, and likely in favor of restoring legal certainty and equal access for those who have made Argentina their home.